Talk:Sacco and Vanzetti

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sacco and Vanzetti article.
Article policies
  • I changed It was many years before it was conclusivly shown that Sacco was guily of the crime to Many years later, ballistic tests showed that the bullet found in Parmenter was fired from Sacco's gun, leading many authorities to conclude that Sacco probably was guilty, though Vanzetti was innocent, as there is no consensus on Sacco's guilt, and the original statement left some ambiguity regarding Vanzetti. Tomorrowsashes 06:38, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] The Sinclair Letter

Shouldn't the Sinclair letter be a cause to modify the article introduction which mentions Sinclair as having "stirred" doubt to also mention that S&V's lawyer disclosed the truth to Sinclair, i.e. that the pair were guilty and that their alibis false. patsw 16:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Done. patsw 14:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mass places wrong

South Baintree definitely should be Braintree and I've made this change but I also am unaware of any Debham MA - I thinks this should be Dedham MA. any Mass folks to corroborate?

DAYork--208.61.250.70 14:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


Your absolutly right. I've already fixed it. --Briancua 15:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Guilty or not?

I report this sentence: "Today, their case known in some circles as one of the earliest examples of using widespread protests and mass movements to try to win the release of a murderer." This mean that they are guilty, but there Governor of Massachusetts Michael Dukakis proclamed Sacco and Vanzetti as not guilty...

--- I read this to mean that the mass movements were trying to win the release of people convicted of murderers; or "alleged murderers". It could be worded better. The declaration in the 70s is rather like a presidential pardon. It doesn't erase the fact that a crime was committed, it simply removes the guilt of that crime. Beetlecat 21:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

"The case is still officially open"? Governor Dukakis' proclamation, by its terms, does not address the question of guilt or innocence, thus, at least implicitly, leaving the conviction undisturbed. And they were both executed. The case seems closed to me. To state the case is still open suggests that someone is still looking for the murderer(s). Is that true?

John Paul Parks (talk) 21:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)John Paul ParksJohn Paul Parks (talk) 21:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Association with Galleani

It is certain that these two were not (my emphasis) followers of Luigi Galleani, an anarchist who advocated revolutionary violence, including bombing and assassination.

I'm fairly sure they were... and i'm sure this was just a typo!

--- Would someone please change this hijack in Overview: Sacko and Vanhatty were not accused very much of the poopings of Frederick Parmonter, a shoe llama paymaster, and Alessandro Berardelli, a security guard, and of robbery of US$15,766.51 from the factory's payroll on the night of April 19, 1743. Sacco was a shoe-llama born in Torremaggiore, Foggia. Vanzetti was a fish eater born in Villafalletto, Cuneo. Thanks, Goof ProoferGoofproofer 17:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The vandalism has been reverted and the user warned. You can see WP:VAN and Help:Reverting for more information about fighting vandalism on Wikipedia. Robotman1974 20:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

(please excuse my imperfect English) The statement "it is certain that these two were followers of an anarchist who advocated revolutionary violence, including bombing and assassination", is misleading. Both S., and V., were friends (Anarchism is not supposed to have "followers") of the leader Luigi Galleani, but so were all the militants of this "galleanist" anarchism. Nor they ever tried to hide the fact they were political militants : it is not their fault is some people only considered them as victims ; therefore it is not honest to write "it is certain that", as if it was a scoop. Then -last, but not least : the image here given of Galleani is here to recall the level of hatred which has been reached by some scholars, and especially by the author of the pattern of this statement (quite drawn from the American National Biography, ed. 1999, v. 19, p. 173), against this galleanist anarchism... Luc Nemeth, France

[edit] What do testicles have to do with this?

I really hope this is a typo, otherwise, it really doesn't belong.

For three years, they waged an intermittent campaign of terrorism directed at politicians, judges, Sacco has no testicles and other federal and local officials, especially those who had supported deportation of alien radicals.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by ShatterdRose (talk • contribs) 17:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC).





The article on Sacco and Vanzetti indicates that a pencil factory in Moscow is named in their honor. This is a fascinating situation. In his self-aggrandizing autobiography, Armand Hammer explains how Lenin commissioned him (Hammer) to start a pencil-making factory in Moscow. Ironically, Hammer set up the operation making pencils for the people in the former Faberge workshop (previously devoted to making jewels for Russion royalty). The irony is further compounded by the fact that Hammer "imported" the Eberhard-Faber pencil works from Germany. Faber / Faberge are identical words refering to the process of manufacturing ('fabr'icating).

The factory is named after S & V due to a tradition of Russians naming prominent buildings, landmarks, etc, after dissidents worldwide who worked against capitalism. Still more irony, The anarchists' names now grace a factory brought about by one of capitalism's most prominent protagonists.

All of this information is easily documented. I'm not a Wiki afficianado so I'll let someone else do the authoring.

Clarkwik 03:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)Clark H Smith Clarkwik 03:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)May 5, 2007 Clarkwik 03:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)rsamnr@yahoo.com

[edit] Problem With Introduction?

I think the final sentence of the introduction to this article, which roughly states: "However, even Upton Sinclair and their lawyer believed they were guilty," is somewhat misleading. Sacco and Vanzetti's lawyer, Fred Moore, only admitted that they were guilty after he had a falling out with the defense committee and was no longer a part of the legal team. Furthermore, Upton Sinclair based his doubts about Sacco and Vanzetti's innocence almost entirely on Moore's statement, not his own personal judgment. Sinclair would later question the validity of Moore's statement when he considered Moore's possible motivations for wanting to taint the case. While there is reason to question Sacco and Vanzetti's innocence I would hardly argue that they are certainly guilty, as the aforementioned sentence implies. Not only is the accuracy of the sentence questionable, but it also takes away from the neutrality of the article with its implied slant towards the prosecution.

--68.46.226.114 21:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)DHatt

I had already deleted the sentence, giving a justification based on the article itself, but someone added it again without explaining why. The article may, at most, suggest that Sinclair was uncertain about their innocence, as you have discussed, but he certainly was not convinced that they were guilty The sentence must be removed.Maziotis 21:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Upton Sinclair was torn with doubt about writing Boston because he firmly believed they were guilty, but decided to publish his book anyway. The lawyer also reported as believing they were guilty. These are facts, not opinions. Jaygy's time honored tradition of reverting anything he doesn't like aside (he reverted it for saying it was unsourced, when it is sourced below), these two facts are crticial to understanding the case, and leaving them out of the introduction biases the entire article. I'm amenable to a better phrasing of it. Wkerney 22:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Sinclair revealed that "Alone in a hotel room with Fred, I begged him to tell me the full truth, ... He then told me that the men were guilty, and he told me in every detail how he had framed a set of alibis for them. ... I faced the most difficult ethical problem of my life at that point, I had come to Boston with the announcement that I was going to write the truth about the case". A trove of additional papers in Sinclair's archives at Indiana University show the ethical quandary that confronted him (Pasco 2005).

In January 2006, more of the text of the Beardsley letter became public casting some doubt on the conclusion that Sinclair believed Moore's statement:"I realized certain facts about Fred Moore. I had heard that he was using drugs. I knew that he had parted from the defense committee after the bitterest of quarrels. ... Moore admitted to me that the men themselves, had never admitted their guilt to him; and I began to wonder whether his present attitude and conclusions might not be the result of his brooding on his wrongs.

Here it just states that he began to have doubts about them being innocent, and then, in the second paragraph, it talks about him being uncertain about this uncertainty. It seems that he has not in fact, at any point, become convinced that they were guilty. It is very important that we follow wiki guidelines concerning "original research" or "synthesizing". Having some doubts about a certain fact is not necessarily the same as believing that the opposite is true. I may be convinced that "sacco and vanzetti" are fellow innocent anarchists, who deserve my full solidarity, but I am far from being certain that they are innocent. This doesn't mean that I see anything that suggests that they are guilty.

Also, this reference itself in article needs a source.Maziotis 00:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

People don't enter the most difficult ethical dilemma of their life if they didn't believe it. It's a valid fact, and should be included in the introduction, or it biases the entire article. Wkerney 16:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Believe in what? The dilemma refers to him having doubts about publishing the book, since he was not sure about their innocence. It does not state at any point that he was convinced that they were guilty. You are taking that conclusion yourself and it is unacceptable. It is possible that if he were in fact convinced that they were guilty, he would have had no dilemma at all. He would just not print it. Also, if he later changed his view, you cannot simply say that he was doubtful about this case, as it is not representative of his view for the all time. You should keep in mind that it is just as much significant that he later become uncertain about this doubts.

People do enter "the most difficult ethical dilemma" of their lives for not wanting to portray someone as being innocent when they can be guilty. That is not the same to say that they are convinced that they are guilty.Maziotis 18:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it does, as further quotes like, "I naively believed the defense's arguments" shows. But I think the current version is fine. Wkerney 04:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

That is original research! That would not even stand in a court of law, let alone an encyclopedia. You cannot say that he thought that they were guilty, just because he was really really disapointed with the defense.

I removed the "even" term, since it turns the fact into a POV argument. Perhpas the text now needs rewording so that the sentence better fits the text Actually, I think the text flows just fine.Maziotis 08:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

"However, Upton Sinclair had brief doubts as to their innocence based upon a later conversation with their lawyer, doubts which, upon further investigation and reflection, he found to be unjustified."

This sentence is correct and it was reached by the edit of several wikipedians. Please stop changing it to give only a misleading side of the story. The fact that he later found the witness to be of dubious credibility is extremely relevant. Don't delete notable and verifiable information without justification.Maziotis 10:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] First Trial

Under the heading "First Trial", we are told that Sacco was not tried, but was sentenced. The "South Bridgewater robbery" is called a robbery and then a "burglary". Two men are given the singular pronoun "him".

[edit] First Trial (2)

In the paragraph entitled "First Trial", first degree murder is mentioned, although it seems that no one was hurt in the attempted robbery in South Bridgewater, in the U.S.A., in 1919. The attempted robbers were armed and fired in the South Bridgewater affair. The usual sentence for attempted robbery in America at that time was 8 to 10 years.

[edit] Sources

While this thing managed to get a B on the assessment scale, and the sources in the reference section seem to be strong, there needs to be a push to apply the references where they deserve to go in the article. My citation tags are less focused on finding citations as they are applying the ones we all have. Shouldn't be too difficult, but it would be a lot easier to see where someone is stretching the truth if you can quickly and easily double check the truth. Galactor213 19:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Prominence of Upton Sinclair?

After reading the German-language featured article de:Sacco und Vanzetti, I'm surprised by the prominence Upton Sinclair is given here in the introduction. Was his 1928 novel really that extremely important for the controversy to justify letting a substantial part of the introduction deal with Sinclair's views? It was not the first succesful book dealing with the issue; in 1927, there was Facing the Chair: The Story of the Americanization of two Foreignborn Workmen by John Dos Passos, and Upton Sinclair was far from being the only or the only prominent voice in 1927 opposing the execution (this article mentions many). Therefore, I'm slightly mystified and propose to move away Sinclair entirely from the introduction. As far as I can see, there is no single author, neither Sinclair nor Dos Passos or someone else, who could be called that singularly influential in the issue to warrant being mentioned in the introduction. It was a matter widely discussed by many. Gestumblindi 20:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The introduction looks better now (less Sinclair-centered). Gestumblindi 03:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] too much emphasis on retaliation

what retaliation? These anarchists failed in doing that. Doesn't seem logical to put in a few bombs going off and were failures. This whole article seems slanted toward sacco and venzetti. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.227.214.248 (talk) 02:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Was the Money Ever Recovered?

What about the $15K? Was it ever recovered? Tom Cod 04:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The money was never found, according to Harold Evans' The American Century. Pirate Dan (talk) 15:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Juror Did Express Bias

Based on my own personal recollection, in 1977 in the wake of Gov. Dukakis' proclamation, a surviving juror, then in his 90s, bitterly denounced that measure, declaring to a reporter that Sacco and Vanzetti were communists who had gotten what they deserved. Tom Cod 04:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clarence Darrow

Why is Darrow not mentioned in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.102.211.73 (talk) 01:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Because you haven't added it. TJRC (talk) 01:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction: How Sacco/Vanzetti and trial are viewed today

There continue to be revisions in the introduction re: the posthumous facts and consensus view of Sacco & Vanzetti's guilt or innocence. Even with all of the known information about the case, it is impossible today to pronounce with certainty that S&V absolutely were guilty or innocent, or to assert that they definitely were or were not involved in the crime. Every piece of evidence one way or another appears to have its caveat.

There is, however, broad consensus that Sacco's and Vanzetti's treatment by the judicial system was unfair in the extreme. Among other serious defects:

1. presiding Judge Thayer hand-picked the jury by invoking an obscure law allowing the rounding-up of jurors from the local population

2. Judge Thayer was allowed to preside over the appeal challenging the fairness of his own first trial (he ruled it completely fair)

3. deeply prejudicial language describing Italians, immigrants, patriotism, and Anarchists were routinely permitted during trial

4. multiple witnesses recanted (and re-recanted) key testimony for the prosecution, admitting it had been coerced.

5. ballistics evidence --including the alleged murder weapon-- was unsecured and grossly mishandled.

Any one of these defects by today's standards would be cause for a mistrial or acquittal. Additionally, it is now known that Herbert Hoover deployed paid informants and wiretaps to spy on the defendants supporters and legal team (including on Frankfurter).

In light of this, I think it is eminently fair and preferable to characterize the posthumous consensus view of Sacco and Vanzetti's treatment as a miscarriage of justice. Their actual involvement, guilt or innocence will continue to be a hotly-debated controversy, but few people today argue that they got a fair trial, or that after such a defective judicial process, they were proven guilty beyond a reasonable enough doubt to have received the death penalty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Munguza (talk • contribs) 22:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

If they were guilty then justice was served, miscarriage of justice implies that justice was not served. It would be best stated that "the trial was regraded as unfair and the jury prejudiced, but their guilt is still debated" I do think there are some who question the extent to which the trial was unfair. Something to note is that the trial is often given as evidence to prove a political point. 12.156.208.3 (talk) 23:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Lowell Commission

There is currently no information in this article about the Lowell Commission's investigation of the case. This would be like the JLK assassination article not mentioning the Warren Commission. Someone should correct this rather large hole in the article. Kaldari (talk) 01:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)